COMPARABLE ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS’ SKILLS DEVELOPMENT IN LITHUANIA AND TURKEY

Students’ skills development in Lithuania and Turkey

2

COMPARABLE ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS’ SKILLS

DEVELOPMENT IN LITHUANIA AND TURKEY

Vilmante Kumpikaite1, Selver Yildiz

2, Imran Aslan

3

1Department of Management, Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania

2 Department of Labour Economics and Industrial Relations, Uludag University,

Gorukle/Bursa, Turkey 3 Department of Business Administration, Erzincan University, Erzincan, Turkey

Students skills development should be played on prior at universities as students will be

organizations’ employees. Professors have to choose the best skills developing methods

for students. This paper introduces students’ skills assessment and their skills

development methods evaluation. Authors look for those evaluation’s differences in

one of the newest European country from East Europe – Lithuania and candidate to

European Union, situated in Europe and Asia - Turkey. 438 students from Lithuania

and 436 students from Turkey participated in the survey. The empirical research is

based on theoretical background and presets investigation of student’s skills,

developing factors and differences according to students’ nationality and gender.

Keywords: students; skills; developing methods; Turkey; Lithuania.

Correspondence author: [email protected], Laisves al. 55, Kaunas,

Lithuania, phone +370 61121952, fax. +370 37323683

Introduction

Managerial skills development is quite popular topic in the last several decades.

Questions of competency and employees’ skills development, were quite widely

researched by foreign and Lithuanian authors: Carmichael & Routledge (1993), Parry

(1998), Klein & Richey (2005), Hagan et al, (2006), Yonghak (2009), Kazlauskaite &

Buciuniene (2008), Zakarevicius & Zuperkiene (2008), Kumpikaite (2008, 2009),

Kumpikaite & Ciarniene (2008a, b), Savaneviciene et al. (2008), and others.

However, developing countries are still preoccupied with conventional management

techniques and are left with ineffective management (Jones & Woodcock, 1985). This

problem is still relevant in many countries. It is crucial, therefore, to identify the

skills and knowledge which contribute to the development and effectiveness of


3

managers in these countries so they can share the same benefits with their

counterparts in developed nations. Authors of this paper selected for this study

Lithuania and Turkey as still developing countries. Lithuania is Eastern European

country, one of the newest country of European Union and under big economic crises‘

influence. Turkey is situated in two continents: Europe and Asia and is a candidate to

EU.

Katz (1974), Boyatzis (1982), Whetten & Cameron (2002), Bigelow (1991),

Analoui (1997, 1998), and Peterson & Peterson (2004) have all asserted that

managerial skills allow managers to enact the functions of management. Through

these functions organizations achieve their objectives. O’Neal (1985, p. 51) stated that

without these fundamental skills managers could not effectively plan, direct, control

and or evaluate work activities. Skills then are necessary for effectively carrying out

managerial functions that are in turn necessary for the effective and efficient

functioning of organizations.

Students are future employees. Therefore, speaking about students‘ managerial

skills evaluation and development it should be important field of interest. However, it

is not so popular field of interest. Carmichael & Routledge (1993), Kumpikaite (2009

a, b), Kumpikaite & Alas (2009) presented works with students. Burggraaf (1997)

introduced research on students’ skills among students per type of housing. With

regard to the three life-spheres, in relation to the housing situation, the students were

asked about their experiences concerning the acquisition of management skills. For

the purpose of defining these skills, the views of Boyatzis (1982), Mintzberg (1989)

and Selznick (1957) were judged on their relevance for the research.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the theoretical and practical aspects of

university students’ skills development and to present results of empirical study


4

provided in Lithuania and Turkey. This paper reveals students’ attitudes to their skills

development.

Research methods – the analysis of scientific literature and empirical research

(structured questionnaire survey).

Methodology: Research methods are the analysis of scientific literature and

empirical research (structured questionnaire survey), statistical data analysis, using

SPSS and Excel programs. Looking at students’ skills evaluation, the research design

is based on Katz (1974), Whetten & Cameron (2002), Analoui (1993) and Peterson &

Van Fleet (2004) typologies. Speaking about students training methods, methodology

was developed analyzing scientific literature and based on Noe (2003), Mankin

(2009) theoretical frameworks and previous provided researches by Kumpikaite’s &

Sakalas (2008) and Kumpikaitė & Alas (2009).

This paper is organized by following. Firstly, theoretical part, analyzing

characteristics of skills’ types and their development methods is given; secondly,

empirical part, presenting results of research of students’ skills evaluation and them

developing methods in Lithuania and Turkey is provided and finally, conclusions and

discussion are proposed.

Theoretical background

Skills typology

Skill encompasses experience and practice, and the gaining of skill leads to

unconscious and automatic actions. Skill is more than just the following of rule based

actions. The potential downside of such an attribute is that, in the absence of

knowledge and attitudes, such a "skilled" person may have no ability or capacity to

react to situations outside the normal condition. Without the knowledge and attitudes


5

contributing to competency, such skills alone can be demonstrated as one of the major

causative factors in human error (Glendon, 1995).

According to Business dictionary skills are described as ability and capacity

acquired through deliberate, systematic, and sustained effort to smoothly and

adaptively carryout complex activities or job functions involving ideas (cognitive

skills), things (technical skills), and/or people (interpersonal skills).

As Labbaf et al. (1996) state that corresponding with the overwhelming

emphasis on the skill approach to management development and along with its

increased acceptability, several taxonomies of managerial skills have been put

forward. They mention that the most notable being typologies of Katz (1974),

Boyatzis (1982), and Whetten & Cameron (2002).

Corresponding to Business dictionary Katz (1974) describes also three essential

skills or competencies: technical, human (interpersonal) and conceptual. All this

involve proficiency, facility, or dexterity that is acquired or developed through

training or experience and are described in more detail.

Technical skills are defined as primarily skills, which include the understanding

of specific activities that require the use of specialized tools, methods, processes,

procedures, techniques, or knowledge. Generally, technical skills are thought of as the

specific skills an individual needs to perform some specialized task. They include

knowledge of proficiency in a certain specialized field, such as engineering,

computers, finance, lowers or manufacturing. Technical skills primarily meant

working with things not people. This view is based on According to Katz (1974).

However Analoui (1997, 1998) has extended technical skills to specific task-related

managerial skills, but he still defines these specific task-related skills as Katz defined

technical skills. Katz (1974) proposed that technical skills become less important as


6

manager moves into higher levels of management, but even top managers need some

proficiency in the organization’s specialty.

Human skills represent the ability to work cooperatively with others and

understand them, to communicate effectively, to motivate, to understand behavioural

principles, to work in group, to resolve conflict, and to be a team player (Katz, 1974,

Mann, 1965). Human skills are primarily concerned with people (Katz, 1974). More

recently, Analoui (1997, 1998) has labelled these people-related skills. However, the

cluster consists of teamwork, dealing with conflict, communications, and creating

organizational climate. And as we can see all of these specific skills are very similar

to Katz’s original concept.

Human skills are important for managers at all levels. They are crucial because

managers deal directly with people. If managers are going to provide performance

feedback, coach and counsel subordinates, and otherwise provide productive work

climate, human skills are essential. Moreover Coulson (1989), Holt & Holt, (1983) or

McConnell (2004) have argued that human skills are those which managers most lack

and thus need the most development.

Conceptual skills are defined as the ability to see the organization as a whole or

to have a systemic viewpoint. Managers must also have the ability to conceptualize

and to think about abstract situations. While technical skills focus on things and

human skills focus on people, conceptual skills focus on ideas and concepts (Yukl,

2002). They are considered mental abilities that allow the manager to understand the

interaction between the different work units within the organization, the effect of

changes on any one part of the system, and how the organization fits into the system.

According to Katz (1974) these skills extend to visualizing the relationship of the firm

to the external environment.


7

Katz’s (1974) model, however, did not address a set of very important skills –

analytical and self-development – which are now believed to be highly influential in

terms of achieving managerial effectiveness (Analoui, 1990, Margerison, 1984,

Margerison, 1985, Kakabadse & Margerison, 1985). Labbaf et al. (1996) in their

survey used Analoui‘s (1990 and 1993) previous surveys of managers skills, where

skills are divided into the three defined categories of: analytical and self-related

skills, people-related skills and task-related skills.

Whetten & Cameron (2002) (cited by McKenna, 2004, p. 666), for example,

consider that there are three sets of managerial skills. Personal skills include

developing self-awareness, managing stress and solving problems creatively.

Interpersonal skills concern communicating supportively, gaining power and

influence, managing conflict and motivating employees. Group skills involve

empowering and delegating and building effective teams. Their approach to skill

development is essentially the same as that manifested in the competencies approach

in that core managerial skills can be identified and that they can be learned

independently of the organizational contexts in which they will be used independently

of the predispositions of the individual.

Cameron & Tschirhart (1988) undertook a factor analysis of a large sample of

data collected from various studies of skills required for effective managerial work

and identified four main groups of skills: Human Relations; competitiveness and

control; innovation; rational thinking. These groupings are similar to the Institute of

Personnel Management's list of skills for development (Farnham, 1990).

There are five skill sets that cover the dimensions of competency and these are

defined in the Australian vocational training system. From Resources for the

Training Package, they are:


8

Task Skills - the requirement to perform individual tasks to an acceptable level

of skill (recall information or terms, application of process.)

Task Management Skills - the requirement to manage a number of different

tasks within the job (priority setting, sequencing of tasks, tips to make job

easier.)

Contingency Management Skills - the requirement to respond to irregularities

and react appropriately when things go wrong. (what do you do if, who to

contact, why is it important.)

Job/Role Environment Skills - the requirement to deal with the responsibilities

and expectations of the work environment, including interacting appropriately

with others in the workplace. (duty of care, obligations, safety requirements.)

Ability to Transfer Skills - the requirement to transfer knowledge, skills and

attitudes to new situations.

Peterson & Van Fleet (2004) summarized that the 23 textbooks, some of

which are new editions of the original 15 textbooks they analyzed, identified a total of

ten core skills. These authors (Peterson a& Van Fleet , 2004, p.1303) provide a list of

the managerial skills identified in the textbooks along with a definition for each skill:

Technical - ability to use methods, procedures, processes, tools, techniques,

and specialized knowledge to perform specific tasks;

Analytic - ability to identify key variables, see how they are interrelated, and

decide which ones should receive the most attention;

Decision making - ability to choose effective solutions from among

alternatives


9

Human - ability to work cooperatively with others, to communicate

effectively, to motivate and train others, to resolve conflicts, and to be a team

player;

Communication - ability to send and receive information, thoughts, and

feelings, which create common understanding and meaning;

Interpersonal - ability to develop and maintain a trusting and open relationship

with superiors, subordinates and peers to facilitate the free exchange of

information and provide a productive work setting;

Conceptual - ability to see the organization as a whole and to solve problems

from a systemic point of view;

Diagnostic - ability to determine the probable cause of a problem from

examining the symptoms which are observed by the manager;

Flexible - ability to deal with ambiguous and complex situations and rapidly

changing demands;

Administrative - ability to follow policies and procedures, process paper work

in an orderly manner, and manage expenditures within the limits set by

budgets.

Summarizing all reviewed authors Skills’ typologies according of them are

given in Table 1.

Take in Table 1 here


10

Skills development

Speaking about skills development we could speak about training, teaching and

learning. Teaching methods are divided in to traditional and e-learning (modern)

methods. They include different techniques. However in this paper we pay the biggest

attention to development from individual positions, how students evaluate

development methods when they learn. Therefore we speak about self development

and learning methods.

These methods could be developed in accordance of their techniques as

traditional and modern computer based methods or number of people involved in

learning process. We selected the second typology to reach goals of our paper.

Therefore based on Noe (2003), Mankin (2009) Kumpikaite & Sakalas (2007) given

and analyzed methods, we could provide following skills development based on

learning methods‘ model (see Figure 1).

Take in Figure 1 here

Individual or self learning methods are such which allow trainees to learn alone,

independent from other. Traditional methods, such as Reading special literature and

modern as Internet browsing or Interactive video watching are involved to these

methods. One-to-one learning methods are such methods when a trainee is involved to

the learning process together with other person, which could be a teacher or other

trainee too. Group learning methods are such methods when several participants are

involved in to learning process. Group methods are described as the best developing

methods (Kumpikaite & Ciarniene, 2008 a,b). Therefore we can see that there are a


11

lot traditional (as Lectures, Groups projects, Discussions and others) as well as

modern (E-learning or Learning networks) group learning methods. Certainly not all

methods given in Figure 1 are very popular and well known.

Empirical Research and its Results

Methods and sample

The study of students’ skills development in Lithuania and Turkey involved two

universities: one in centre city of Lithuania, another one in Asian north western part

of Turkey. A survey was carried out by distributing questionnaires, which were

designed and tested for this purpose earlier (Kumpikaite (2009), Alas & Kumpikaite

(2009)). The questionnaires were prepared in paper version (for students studying

Informatics) or given throw website (for students studying Economics and

Management) in Lithuania and printed questionnaires were distributed in Turkey.

Questionnaires were given in respondents’ original languages. Original questionnaire

was prepared in Lithuanian. It was translated in to English later, using double

translation method for checking, and given to Turkey where it was translated in to

Turkish language and prepared for survey.

The study was provided in 2010. In total, 438 undergraduate students, studying

Information Technologies, Economics or Management participated in the poll in

Lithuania and 436 students, studying Economics and Administrative Sciences,

Business, Labour Economics and Industrial relations, Econometrics, Economics,

International Relations, Finance or Public administration were involved in to research

in Turkey. General information about respondents is given in Table 2.


12


Looking at general information about students we can see that the biggest

percent of respondents were in the 2nd course and more females than males were

involved in the research. Total sample of girls were 60,5% in Lithuania and 52.3% in

Turkey. 61% of all participants in Lithuania and 37,4% in Turkey were studying in

the 2nd course at the time of survey.

Measures

Synthesizing the works of Katz (1974), Whetten & Cameron (2002), Analoui (1993)

and Peterson & Van Fleet (2004) (see Table 1), basic 16 management skills were

selected and changed to form the wording of the questions for students‘ skills

evaluation survey. These skills were divided in to four groups:

(1) Personal skills (4 items);

(2) Technical skills (3 items);

(3) Human or interpersonal skills (6 items);

(4) Conceptual skills (3 items).

Trying to find out the most students developing methods (see Figure 1) the most

popular and known for students traditional and modern learning methods were

selected:

(1) Individual learning (3 items);

(2) One-to-one learning (3 items);

(3) Group learning (6 items).

The scale for evaluations was divided in to 4 levels: 1 – weak, 2 – average, 3 – good

and 4 – excellent.


13

Results

Skills’ development evaluation

The survey started from managerial skills‘evaluation. As it was mentioned before

there were 16 different skills provided for respondents. The results of their answers

according to countries are given in Table 3.


The lowest evaluations are for Specialty experience. 27,5% of Lithuanians and

25,6% of Turkish students evaluated their Specialty experience as weak. At the same

time Responsibility sense is evaluated the best. Just 1,1 percent of both respondents’

groups evaluated their responsibility sense as weak.

Lithuanians evaluated all their skills higher than Turkish students (see Figure 2).

The lowest difference (4,1%) is in specialty experience item’s evaluation. This item is

evaluated the lowest for both groups of respondents. However it has sense as students

not having practice cannot gain a lot experience. Moreover subject knowledge is

evaluated quite low also. It could be because respondents are younger course’s

students, notwithstanding this situation shows that students should get more these

knowledge. Summarizing, we can say technical skills group is the lowest from all

groups for both countries when excellent and good score are combined.



14

It should be mentioned that both students’ groups evaluated their responsibility

sense the best (94,0% for Lithuanians and 85,8% for Turkish students). What is

interesting that analytic thinking score of Lithuania is higher than Turkish students at

the university survey carried out. For management student, this ability is an important

indicator for their future successes.

No statistical difference was found between skills evaluation and respondents’

country. Looking at differences between genders’ evaluation it is given Table 4.


According to Table 4, we can see that 90% of all respondents groups evaluated

their ability to show own opinion as excellent and good. Turkish females evaluated

their subject knowledge higher from other groups. Their evaluations are highest also

in such items as Responsibility sense – 97,8% (Turkish males’ evaluation is the

lowest from all groups), which is evaluated the highest from all items among all

groups, Communicability – 92,5%, Ability to contact – 91,7% (Lithuanian males are

on the second place (90,3%), Activity -89.5% and Self-presentation – 76,5%. It

should be mentioned that females from both countries evaluated themselves as more

Criticism tolerant, especially Lithuanians. AT the same time Lithuanian males are at

least tolerant. It was noticed that evaluating interpersonal skills groups almost in all

items spread in such way from the highest to the lowest: Turkish females, Lithuanian

males, Lithuanian females and Turkish males. Lithuanian females evaluated just Self

presentation and Ability to work in group a little better than Lithuanian men. These

results show that Turkish males should develop their interpersonal skills more than

other group.


15

Developing methods’ evaluation

There are apparent differences between evaluating development methods in Turkey

and Lithuania (see Figure 3). When they are compared, the biggest difference (39%)

is seen in reading special literatures. Lithuania students give the lowest score (31,6 %)

to reading special literatures. They give the highest score (79,7 %) to the distance

training item whereas Turkish students give the highest score to the project

performing. The lowest difference (0,1 %) for both countries is seen for observations,

what others do. Turkish students give the lowest score (26,8 %) instructions for

others. Distance training which is very high for other group is below average for

Turkish students. Team working scores are very high for both countries.


There were found some statistical differences between respondents’ country and

them developing methods’ evaluation. According to this we could say that Turkish

like more individual or group learning methods as at the same time Lithuanian

students – one –to – one and some group methods, such which do not need their

active and direct participation (Observation what others do and especially Distance

learning). However no statistical differences were found between respondents’ gender

and them developing methods.


16

Conclusion and discussion

Katz‘s (1974) work according to Labbaf et al. (1996) provides some support for the

argument that the hierarchical level in which managers function tends to influence

their need for the three broad categories of technical, human, and conceptual skills.

He further contends that in practice these skills are so closely interrelated that it is

difficult to determine where one ends and another begins.

Results showed that learning methods do not depend on respondents’ gender but

there are some differences between countries and these methods. It could be

connected with respondents’ culture. Lithuanians prefer learning methods were they

would not need to show their own opinion a lot. Study revealed that students who can

show their own opinion better prefer project performing more than students who’s

ability to show their own opinion is not developed so good. However respondents

who’s Ability to show own opinion was evaluated higher evaluated all their skills

especially Communicability and Self reliance higher too.

Speaking about results from Lithuania we can say that it was found statistical

dependence among skills evaluation. Those students, who evaluated their personal

skills higher, evaluated all other skills higher too. Moreover it should be mentioned

that statistical dependence was found that females evaluated their personal and

interpersonal skills better than males and technical skills worse than males. The

average of positive evaluation of interpersonal, conceptual and personal skills is

similar. Around 40 percent of respondents evaluated them well and very well. The

lowest evaluation average is for technical skills.

Thinking that the world is influenced by globalization so much our explored

students will be involved to work in international groups and organizations. Therefore


17

their skills should be developed in accordance with these requirements. Lithuanians

should be trained more to feel better involving in to Team works, Project performance

and Development courses. At the same time Turkish students should be introduced

with Distance learning more. The most part of explored Lithuanian students were

familiar with this study method and used it for their studies. And this method was

selected as the most developing factor for Lithuanians. This method gives possibility

to work in different countries, with different people at the same time and to help

improve their skills, especially Interpersonal and Conceptual.

Looking at differences among respondents’ skills and work experiences it was

found that students having bigger work experiences evaluated better just one skill.

And this skill is Specialty experience. At the same time, respondents having longer

work experience like Reading special literature, Considering of received task with the

supervisor, Developing courses and Watching training problems less that other

students and prefer Distance training as the most developing method.

All received results could be useful for professors teaching students and for

every person identifying their week sides and necessity to develop skills.

Speaking about the research limitations we should mention that we cannot speak

about all students in analyzed countries in general because studies were made just in

two universities. Different results could be received while analysing different

universities and universities in different regions and cities.

Value of this paper could be described as original research provided among

students in Lithuania and Turkey, trying to find out their needs and evaluation of their

skills in different countries and to provide means of their improvement.


18

References

1. Katz, R.L., “Skills of an effective administrator”, Harvard Business Review, Vol.

52,

September-October 1974, pp. 90-102.

16. Katz, R.L., “Skills of an effective administrator”, Harvard Business Review,

January-

February 1955.

Whetten, D.A. and Cameron, K.S., Developing Management Skills, Scott, Foresman

and

Company, Glenview, IL, 1984.

3. Analoui, F., An Investigation into Management Training Development Needs of

Senior

Officials in Zimbabwe, DPPC, Research Monograph No. 2, University of Bradford,

Bradford, 1990.

9. Margerison, C.J., “Chief executives’ perception of managerial success factors”,

Journal of

Management Development, Vol. 3 No. 4, 1984, pp. 47-60.

13. Analoui, F., “Skills of management”, in Cusworth, J.W. and Franks, T.F. (Eds),

Managing

Projects in Developing Countries, Longman, 1993.

19. Margerison, C.J., “Achieving the capacity and competence to manage”, Journal of

Management Development, Vol. 4 No. 3, 1985, pp. 42-55.

20. Kakabadse, A. and Margerison, C., “What management development means for

American

CEOs”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 4 No. 5, 1985, pp. 3-15.

21. Stewart, R., The Reality of Management, Heinemann, London, 1963.

Tim O. Peterson, David D. Van Fleet. The ongoing legacy of R.L. Katz.An updated

typology of management skills. Management Decision, Vol. 42 No. 10, 2004

pp. 1297-1308, DOI 10.1108/00251740410568980

2. Glendon, I.A. and McKenna, E.F., Human Safety and Risk Management, Chapman

and Hale, 1995.

Farnham, D., "New Steps to Professional Qualification", Personnel Management,

September 1990.

Boyatzis, R. (1982), The Competent Manager,Wiley- Interscience, New York, NY.

Boyatzis, R. (1982), The Competent Manager,Wiley- Interscience, New York, NY.

Mintzberg, H. (1989), Mintzberg on Management, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Burggraaf W., (1997), Management skills from different educational settings,

International Journal of Educational Management. 11/2, 65–71

Selznick, P. (1957), Leadership in Administration, University of California Press,

Berkeley, CA.

Australian vocational training system. Resources for the Training

Package,http://www.resourcegenerator.gov.au/loadpage.asp?page=TPAG.htm

Business Dictionary, http://www.businessdictionary.com/article/


19

Savaneviciene, A, Stukaite, D. & Silingiene, V. (2008). Development of strategic

individual competences. Inzinerine ekonomika – Engineering Economics, Vol. 3,

No.58. pp.81-88.

Parry, S. B. (1998). Just what is a competency? (And why should you care?) Training,

35(6), 58-64.

Hagan, C. M., Konopaske, R., Bernardin, H.J. & Tyler, C.L. (2006) Predicting

Assessment Centre Performance With 360-Degree, Top-Down, And Customer-Based

Competency Assessments Human Resource Management, Fall 2006, Vol. 45, No. 3,

p. 357–390

Kazlauskaite, R. & Buciuniene, I. (2009). The Role of Human Resources and Their

Management in the Establishment of Sustainable Competitive Advantage. Inzinerine

ekonomika – Engineering Economics, Vol.5 No.60, pp.78-84.

Klein, J. D., & Richey, R. C. (2005). Improving Individual and Organizational

Performance. The Case for International Standards. Performance Improvement. Vol.

44, No. 10.

Klink, M. V., & Boon, J. (2002). The investigation of competencies within

professional domains. Human Resource Development International, 5(4), 411-424.

Kumpikaitė, Vilmantė. Students as future performers: comparable analysis at Kaunas University of

Technology, Lithuania // International 7th Knowledge, Economy & Management Congress

Proceedings [elektroninis išteklius], October 30-31 - November 1, 2009, Yalova, Turkiye. Istanbul :

Istanbul University, 2009. ISBN 9789944020350. p. 1117-1128.

Kumpikaite, V., & Alas, R. (2009). Students' Attitudes to Work and Studies: Practical

Case, Economics and Management = Ekonomika ir vadyba [elektroninis išteklius] /

Kaunas university of technology. Kaunas: Technologija. 2009, no. 14, pp. 582-588.

Kumpikaite, V. & Ciarniene, R. (2008a). New training technologies and their use in

training and development activities: Survey evidence from Lithuania. Journal of

Business Economics and Management. Vol. 9 No.2, pp.155-159.

Kumpikaite, V. & Ciarniene, R. (2008b). New training technologies developing

human resource. Proceedings of the international conference Economics and

management – 2008 at Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania, Kaunas, KTU,

No.13, pp. 368-373.

Kumpikaitė, Vilmantė; Sakalas, Algimantas. Human resource development system evaluation in

companies in the furniture trade in Lithuania // EBS Review : Organizational Change and Development

in Transitional Countries. Tallin : Estonian Business School. ISSN 1406-0264. 2008, Vol. 1, no. 24, p.

63-82.

Kumpikaitė, Vilmantė; Sakalas, Algimantas. Human resource development in innovation process in the

age of globalization (Lithuanian study) // Managing Total Innovation and Open Innovation in the 21st

Century : proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Management Technology ISMOT'07,

June 1-3, 2007, Hangzhou, China. Hangzhou : Zhejiang University Press, 2007. ISBN 9787894903754.

p. 408-412

Yonghak, L. (2009). Competencies Needed by Korean Hrd Master’s Graduates: A

Comparison between the Astd Wlp Competency Model and the Korean Study Human

Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 1, Spring 2009 © Wiley Periodicals,

Inc. Published Online In Wiley Interscience (Www.Interscience.Wiley.Com).

Farnham, D., "New Steps to Professional Qualification", Personnel Management,

September 1990.


20

Cameron, K. and Tschirhart, M., "Managerial Competence and Organizational

Effectiveness"

Working Paper, University of Michigan, 1988.

J.L. Carmichael and C.W. Routledge, Managing a Skills

Development Process, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 25 No. 2. 1993. pp.

18-22 MCB University Press, 0019-7858

Steve McKenna, Predispositions and context in the development of managerial skills,

Journal of Management Development, Vol. 23 No. 7, 2004 pp. 664-677, DOI

10.1108/02621710410546669

Whetten, D.A. and Cameron, K.S. (2002), Developing Management Skills, Prentice-

Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.


21

Table 1

Skills Typologies according to Different Sources

Katz (1974) Analoui

(1990,

1993)

Whetten and

Cameron

(2002)

Peterson &

Van Fleet

(2004)

Australian

vocational

training

system

Cameron

and

Tschirhar

t (1988)

Sk

ills

Technical;

Human;

Conceptual

Task-

related;

People-

related;

Analytical

and self-

related

skills,

Personal;

Interpersonal;

Group

Technical;

Analytic;

Decision

making;

Human;

Communicat

ion;

Interpersonal

;

Conceptual;

Diagnostic;

Flexible;

Administrati

ve

Task Skills;

Task

Management;

Contingency;

Management;

Job/Role

Environment;

Ability to

Transfer

Human

Relations;

Competi-

tiveness

and

control;

Innovation

;

Rational

thinking


22

Figure 1. Skills development methods

Individual learning One-to-one learning Group learning

Assignments

Internet browsing

Interactive video

Reading special

literature

Coaching

Counselling

Demonstration

Exercises

Considering of

received task with

the supervisor

Action learning Set

Assignment

Brainstorming

Business game

Case study

Discussion

E-learning

Field trip

Group exercise:

inter-personal skills

Group project

In-tray exercise

Learning networks

Involvement into

other work areas

Lecture

Lesson

Skills development methods


23

Table 2

General information about respondents

Lithuania Turkey

Valid Percent Valid Percent

Age Under 20 46,1 32,6

21+ 53,9 67,4

Gender Male 38,6 47,7

Female 60,5 52,3

Course of studies 1 12,8 22,2

2 61,0 37,4

3 4,8 26,8

4 21,5 12,2

5 0 1,4

Type of studies Day time studies 58,7 57,8

Evening time studies 40,5 41,5

Extended studies 0,8 0,7

Work experience in No 42,0 50,7

years Under 1 29,2 33,5

Under 3 18,7 10,3

Under 5 6,2 3,7

Under 10 2,7 1,8

Over 10 1,1 0


24

Table 3

Students’ skills evaluation

Skills’ Items Excellent Good Average Weak

groups

Lit

hu

ania

Turk

ey

Lit

hu

ania

Turk

ey

Lit

hu

ania

Turk

ey

Lit

hu

ania

Turk

ey

% % % % % % % %

Technical Subject knowledge 15,1 13,7 44 39,5 32,8 29 7,6 7,5

skills: Specialty experience 8,5 8 29,4 25,8 34,6 30,8 27,5 25,6

Application experience 28,9 26 51,6 45,4 16,1 15,3 2,8 2,7

Human Self-presentation 21,8 19,4 46,1 40,9 25 23,3 4,1 3,7

(interper- Ability to contact 39,7 35,6 48,9 44,3 9,9 8,7 1,6 1,6

sonal

skills):

Ability to show own

opinion

49,3 44,3 40,8 36,8 9,2 8,4 0,5 0,5

Communicability 48,4 43,2 39,9 36,3 10,3 9,4 1,4 1,4

Ability to work in team 43,6 39,7 43,1 38,4 9,6 8,7 3,7 3,4

Self-reliance 49,5 44,1 38,3 34,7 10,6 9,8 1,6 1,6

Conceptu

al skills:

Ability to solve problems

34,2 31,3 51,6 45,9 13,5 12,3 0,7 0,7

Analytic thinking 26,4 23,5 46,6 42 24,8 22,6 2,3 2,1

Goal understanding, ability

to plan, analyze results

38,1 34 45,4 40,9 15,6 14,4 0,9 0,9

Personal Responsibility sense 65,1 58,7 28,9 26,5 4,8 3,9 1,1 1,1

skills: Creativeness 33,3 29,9 46,1 41,6 17,9 16,2 2,8 2,5

Activity 32,3 29,9 51,4 44,5 14,2 13,9 2,1 1,8

Criticism tolerance 26,4 23,7 42,9 39 22,7 20,5 8,0 6,8


25

Figure 2. Students’ skills evaluation as excellent and good in percent


26

Table 4

Skills Evaluation in Accordance to Gender and Country as excelend and good in

percent

Skills Male Female

Turkey Lithuania Turkey Lithuania

Technical

Skills

Subject knowledge 57,5 58,4 61,2 59,6

Specialty experience 45,7 42,2 30,7 33,8

Application experience 84,5 81,7 77,9 78,7

Interpersonal

Skills

Self-presentation 62,9 66,7 76,5 71,1

Ability to contact 85,1 90,3 91,7 87,3

Ability to show own opinion 90,3 90,3 90,4 90,3

Communicability 83,7 91,6 92,5 86,1

Ability to work in team 82,2 86,4 90,8 86,5

Self-reliance 87,0 87,7 88,6 86,9

Conceptual

Skills

Ability to solve problems 88,0 88,3 83,8 83,5

Analytic thinking 74,0 75,3 71,9 70,9

Goal understanding, ability to

plan, analyze results 81,3 80,5 85,5 84,4

Personal

Skills

Responsibility sense 89,9 94,8 97,8 94,1

Creativeness 80,3 79,2 78,5 79,3

Activity 77,4 83,1 89,5 81,9

Criticism tolerance 65,4 61,0 72,8 74,7


27

Figure 3. Students developing methods’ evaluation as excellent and good in percent


28

COMPARABLE ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS’ SKILLS DEVELOPMENT IN

LITHUANIA AND TURKEY

Vilmante Kumpikaite. Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania

Selver Yildiz. Uludag University, Turkey

Imran Aslan. Erzincan University, Turkey

Students skills development should be played on prior at universities as students will

be organizations’ employees. Professors have to choose the best skills developing

methods for students. This paper introduces students’ skills assessment and their skills

development methods evaluation. Authors look for those evaluations differences in




based on theoretical background and presets investigation of students’ skills,


Keywords: students; skills; developing methods; Turkey; Lithuania

http://paperedu.org/docs/index-36978.html?page=14_


29

COMPARABLE ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS’ SKILLS

DEVELOPMENT IN LITHUANIA AND TURKEY

Vilmante Kumpikaite1, Selver Yildiz

2, Imran Aslan

3

1Department of Management, Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania

2 Department of Labour Economics and Industrial Relations, Uludag University,

Gorukle/Bursa, Turkey 3 Department of Business Administration, Erzincan University, Erzincan, Turkey

Students skills development should be played on prior at universities as students will be

organizations’ employees. Professors have to choose the best skills developing methods

for students. This paper introduces students’ skills assessment and their skills

development methods evaluation. Authors look for those evaluation’s differences in




based on theoretical background and presets investigation of student’s skills,


Keywords: students; skills; developing methods; Turkey; Lithuania.

Correspondence author: [email protected], Laisves al. 55, Kaunas,

Lithuania, phone +370 61121952, fax. +370 37323683

Vilmantė Kumpikaitė is Associated Professor and works at the Department of Management of

Faculty of Economics and Management at Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania. She is the

author and co-author over 60 scientific publications and books and held about 30 academic

presentations in international conferences over the world. Her major fields of scientific research

include Human Resource Development and its Evaluation; Modern Teaching and Learning Methods;

Distance Education; Spirituality and Moral Values at Work, and International Migration Processes. E-

mail: [email protected]

Selver Yildiz, PhD, is a lecture in the Department of Labour Economics and Industrial Relations at

Uludag University, Turkey. Her main topics of interest are Work and Organizational Psychology;

Human Resources and Social Politics, which could be divided in following sub topics as

Mobbing/Bullying; Workplace Violence; Women in the Working Life; Job Satisfaction, and Juvenile

Delinquent. E-mail: [email protected]


30

Imran Aslan is a Research Assistant at Business Administration Department of the Faculty of

Economics and Administrative Sciences at Erzincan University, Turkey. He is an Industrial Engineer

and graduated from University of Marmara, Istanbul, Turkey. Moreover, he has done his master in

Technical Management at the University of FH/OOW Emden,Germany. His major fields of scientific

research are Operation Research, Supply Chain Management and Project Management. He is a current

PhD student at the University of Atatürk, Turkey. E-mail: [email protected]

Date post:	01-Mar-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	bingol
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

COMPARABLE ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS’ SKILLS DEVELOPMENT IN LITHUANIA AND TURKEY

Documents